Talk:Chemistry.com

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stub Class

I inserted a generic stub class parameter for the time being. I'm surprised this article hadn't already existed. Keithbrooks 10:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

This article needs some references to reliable sources, per WP:RS and WP:V. – ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, on the subject of sources, the link to "The Great Mate Debate" is broken. DMJ001 (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

This section seems to violate WP:NOR. I will leave it for the time being with a citation needed tag, but because of the nature of the section, I feel that it should be held to a stricter standard and not allowed to sit around uncited. It should be removed if no citation can be found. 173.76.204.216 (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Details of method? Proof?

I recently read in the news (sorry, it was weeks ago, so I can't cite it) that none of the online dating sites (eHarmony included) have proven any more successful than any other method of meeting people. As chemistry.com appears to be an online dating site like eHarmony, and claims to be backed up by science (see Helen Fisher's 2008 TED talk for example, which led me to believe it was a research project rather than a dating site), then it should be willing to explain its methods, and why they work. And of course it should be able to not just explain why, but actually prove they work by showing the results. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chemistry.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512083126/http://chemistrygreatdebate.spaces.live.com/ to http://ChemistryGreatDebate.spaces.live.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]